AMD A12-9800 vs Intel Core i5-3350P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a decisive, consistent margin for the Intel Core i5-3350P across every single benchmark in the comparison set. The Intel part wins all five matched tests, with the AMD A12-9800 failing to take a single victory. This is not a close contest; the smallest gap is still a substantial double-digit percentage.

Starting with multi-core performance, the Intel Core i5-3350P posts a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 371, against 316 for the AMD A12-9800. That translates to a 17.4% advantage for Intel. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Intel chip scores 1546 versus 1318, a 17.3% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part reaches 3681 while the AMD part manages 3140, a 17.2% difference. The consistency across these three generations of the Cinebench test is notable: the Intel lead hovers almost exactly in the 17.2% to 17.4% band, suggesting a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel Core i5-3350P scores 217, while the AMD A12-9800 scores 186, a 16.7% gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel part scores 519 versus 443, a 17.2% lead. The single-core margins are nearly identical to the multi-core margins, which is an important data point. It indicates that the Intel advantage is not derived from better scaling across cores, but rather from a fundamentally stronger per-thread execution capability. The AMD part's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz do not overcome the Intel part's lower 3.10 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost in these tests. The recorded data shows that clock speed alone does not predict the outcome.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the Intel Core i5-3350P holds an average score of 1088 across all recorded tests, while the AMD A12-9800 holds 1081. That is a slim 0.6% difference in the aggregate, which is far smaller than the head-to-head Cinebench deltas. This discrepancy is worth interpreting carefully. The head-to-head set is limited to Cinebench variants, where Intel wins each time by roughly 17%. The average score, however, includes other workload types from the database. The fact that the averages are so close while the Cinebench results are so lopsided suggests that the AMD part performs relatively better in other, unlisted benchmark categories. The database does not specify which those categories are, but the aggregate data implies that the AMD A12-9800 has strengths outside the pure CPU compute rendering workloads that Cinebench represents.

The nearest-rival data for each chip reinforces this split identity. The Intel Core i5-3350P sits exactly level with the AMD Athlon 220GE, both at an average score of 1088, a 0% delta. It also sits within 0.3% of the Intel Core i3-6320 and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i5-2450P. The AMD A12-9800, meanwhile, is effectively tied with the Intel Pentium Gold G6505T at a 0.1% delta and with the Intel Core i5-3335S at a 0.1% delta. In percentile terms, both chips land at the 30th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy a similar tier in the overall distribution. The head-to-head deltas, however, show that within the specific Cinebench workloads, the Intel part is clearly the stronger performer.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i5-3350P wins all five recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the AMD A12-9800. The AMD part wins zero. The Intel victories span Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core.

Q: What is the largest percentage difference in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Intel Core i5-3350P leads by 17.4%. The Intel score is 371 versus 316 for the AMD A12-9800.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-3350P has an average benchmark score of 1088, while the AMD A12-9800 has an average score of 1081. The Intel part leads by roughly 0.6% in the aggregate, a much smaller margin than the head-to-head Cinebench results.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i5-3350P and the AMD A12-9800 are recorded at the 30th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the AMD A12-9800 have a higher clock speed than the Intel processor?

A: Yes, the AMD A12-9800 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Intel Core i5-3350P has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. Despite the higher clocks, the AMD part loses every head-to-head benchmark.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core i5-3350P has a single-core Cinebench R23 score of 519, compared to 443 for the AMD A12-9800. That is a 17.2% advantage for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3350P is the clear winner in pure CPU compute workloads as measured by Cinebench. Every single-core and multi-core rendering test in the head-to-head set goes to Intel, with margins consistently between 16.7% and 17.4%. If the workload is heavily threaded rendering, such as Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part leads by 17.4%. If the workload is lightly threaded, such as Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel part still leads by 17.2%. The data indicates that the Intel architecture delivers superior instructions-per-clock in both scalar and multi-core scenarios, regardless of the clock speed disadvantage. For users running CPU rendering, encoding, or other compute-bound tasks that resemble Cinebench, the Intel Core i5-3350P is the stronger choice.

The AMD A12-9800 does not win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, so it cannot be recommended on the basis of those tests. However, the aggregate average score data tells a more nuanced story. The AMD part's average score of 1081 is only 0.6% behind the Intel part's 1088, despite losing every Cinebench test by roughly 17%. This implies that in benchmark categories outside the head-to-head set, the AMD A12-9800 must be substantially ahead of the Intel part to pull the averages so close together. The database does not specify which categories those are, but the arithmetic is clear: the AMD part has to outperform Intel by a significant margin in some other workload to offset the Cinebench losses. That points to scenarios where the AMD part may be competitive, likely in memory-sensitive or mixed workloads, though the data does not explicitly identify them.

Another distinguishing factor is the integrated graphics. The AMD A12-9800 includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU, while the Intel Core i5-3350P has no integrated graphics listed in the database. For a system that relies on the processor's built-in display output, the AMD part has a functional advantage. The Intel part requires a discrete graphics card to produce any display signal. This is a decisive differentiator for basic desktop use, office work, or media playback, where a discrete GPU may be unnecessary. The AMD part's integrated Radeon R7 also contributes to the platform's overall capability, even though it does not appear in the CPU benchmark scores.

The AMD A12-9800 also supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel Core i5-3350P supports DDR3. The AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, a figure the Intel part lacks in the database. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth bound, the AMD platform may offer better sustained throughput. The data does not include a head-to-head memory benchmark, but the specification difference is clear.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several core specifications. The Intel Core i5-3350P uses the Intel Socket 1155, while the AMD A12-9800 uses AMD Socket AM4. The Intel part is built on a 22 nm process node, while the AMD part uses a 28 nm node. The Intel chip has a die size of 133 mm², while the AMD chip has a die size of 250 mm². The AMD part has a transistor count of 3,100 million, while the Intel part has no transistor count recorded in the database.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Intel Core i5-3350P has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The AMD A12-9800 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The AMD part is clocked higher in both states. The power envelope is similar: the Intel part has a TDP of 69 watts, while the AMD part has a TDP of 65 watts.

Memory support is different. The Intel part supports DDR3 memory, while the AMD part supports DDR4. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Intel part has no memory bandwidth figure in the database. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Intel part offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD part offers Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics situation is a major divergence. The Intel Core i5-3350P has no integrated graphics listed, while the AMD A12-9800 includes a Radeon R7 GPU. The cache layouts are also different. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has a total of 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache recorded.

The release dates are separated by roughly five years. The Intel Core i5-3350P was released on September 2, 2012, while the AMD A12-9800 was released on July 26, 2017. The AMD part has a production status of "Active," while the Intel part has no production status recorded. Both parts are desktop segments, have four cores and four threads, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is significant. The Intel Core i5-3350P is based on the Ivy Bridge architecture, which is the third-generation Core microarchitecture. The AMD A12-9800 is based on the Excavator architecture, specifically the Bristol Ridge codename. These are fundamentally different designs from different eras. The Intel part is a 22 nm design from Intel's own foundry, while the AMD part is a 28 nm design from GlobalFoundries.

The transistor and die size figures highlight the design differences. The AMD A12-9800 packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die, while the Intel Core i5-3350P fits into a 133 mm² die with no transistor count listed. The AMD die is nearly double the size of the Intel die, yet the Intel part wins every compute benchmark in the head-to-head set. This indicates that the Intel Ivy Bridge microarchitecture achieves higher performance per unit of silicon area, and likely higher performance per transistor as well, despite the AMD part's higher clock speeds.

Cache hierarchy is another key architectural difference. The Intel Core i5-3350P uses a three-level cache design: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD A12-9800 uses a two-level design: 320 KB of total L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The absence of L3 cache on the AMD part is a significant architectural limitation. The Intel part's 6 MB of shared L3 cache provides a large pool of fast memory for frequently accessed data, which helps explain its superior single-core and multi-core Cinebench scores. The AMD part must rely entirely on its smaller L2 cache, which is a disadvantage in compute-heavy workloads.

The generation labels also differ. The Intel part is listed as "Core i5 (Ivy Bridge)," while the AMD part is listed as "A12 (Bristol Ridge)." The Intel part belongs to the Ivy Bridge generation, while the AMD part belongs to the Bristol Ridge generation, which is a later release. Despite being the newer product by release date, the AMD part does not outperform the older Intel design in the recorded benchmarks.

The memory controller architecture differs as well. The Intel part supports DDR3, which was the standard for its 2012 release period. The AMD part supports DDR4, which aligns with its 2017 release. The AMD part's recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s reflects the newer DDR4 standard. The Intel part has no bandwidth figure recorded, but its DDR3 support would inherently provide lower bandwidth. The PCIe configuration also differs: Intel provides 16 CPU-attached lanes, while AMD provides 8 CPU-attached lanes. This means the Intel part can support more direct PCIe devices at full lane width, though the database does not include a benchmark that isolates this difference.

Both parts have four cores and four threads, so neither offers simultaneous multithreading. Both have locked multipliers, ruling out easy overclocking. Neither supports ECC memory. The Intel part has no integrated graphics, which is a notable architectural decision for a desktop part from that era. The AMD part includes the Radeon R7 integrated GPU, which is a substantial addition for a desktop APU. This integrated GPU does not factor into the CPU benchmark scores, but it is a real architectural difference that affects platform-level capability. For a build without a discrete GPU, the AMD A12-9800 is the only one of the two that can function standalone.